Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

'Big Oil' Must Go Nuclear

Shell and BP will have to go nuclear if they want to remain 'supermajor' leaders of the global energy industry.

That is the startling finding of a major report into the energy industry in the age of climate change by JPMorgan.

The US investment bank envisages that 'Big Oil' will play a significant role in the future redevelopment of nuclear power.

The JPMorgan report suggests that within 10 years, nuclear will be at the top of the agenda for a world preoccupied with clean, green energy and replacing diminishing global stocks of oil and gas.

Nuclear is also likely to come to be seen as the only effective future for the socalled 'hydrogen economy', when powercharged fuel cells replace oil in the global automotive industry and elsewhere.

This could definitely be great if oil companies get into the nuclear game. They have plenty of market capital to build new reactors in the first place and would be able to fund billion dollar projects without blinking.

I viewed this statement from the JPMorgan analyst as an indication of a generally favorable attitude on Wall Street toward nuclear power. I took the comments mostly as a "general" indication of large investor groups' sentiments on nuclear energy.

A favorable disposition of investment banks toward nuclear energy is necessary for future major developments in the area, especially given the recent history concerning the TXU buyout and cancellation of plans for several coal-fired power plants.

The positive attitude shown in this article bodes well for the financial and legal aspects of new build.

(I see the possibility of plug-in-hybrid vehicles as technologically more feasible at this time than hydrogen fuel cells).

The separation of carbon dioxide from air is not energetically intense, not compared to the energy then required to convert it and water vapour into fuel and oxygen. However, although boron cars are harder to develop, people will want them.

There are any number of ways in which the heat released by nuclear reactors could be used to power transport vehicles. I haven't heard of dimethyl ether, but nuclear can certainly be used to make hydrogen, and it can be used to charge batteries, and it can be used to run electric trains.

But in any case, just replacing coal-fired power stations will be a pretty good start :)

Personally, I think we might just see a lot of pure battery electric vehicles in the not too distant future, given the development of things like the Tesla Roadster and, even more impressive, the Phoenix electric pickup truck.

Whichever way it pans out, it seems to me that just about every option for transport fuel (except biofuels, which have severe environmental problems of their own) requires a stationary energy source that doesn't emit CO2 somewhere in the mix.

What kind of range does that Tesla have? How long is the charging cycle? I don't mind the prospect of a few hours' charging time going to work and back. Probably okay on range for that as well. Now, making my annual trek to the beach might be a bit of a challenge. I can "recharge" my gas guzzler at the pump in a few minutes, and go another 400 miles without much problem, and make it there in a day.

My problem with dimethyl ether (CH3OCH3) is that it is a hydrocarbon, which will release CO2 when burned. I don't really see the point in replacing one hydrocarbon with another if the aim of the exercise is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water seems to me to be a better option, although I am not an expert.

Using nuclear energy to pry hydrogen out of water would be part of the process of making nuclear gasoline or nuclear DME; I used to think motorists would want to use pure hydrogen directly, but now understand that despite repeated production of prototype hydrogen cars dating back to the early 1970s, no ordinary motorist wants such a car. And they have reason in not wanting them.

Ideally, nuclear production of a fuel hydrocarbon would take out the CO2 from the atmosphere that will be put back when the fuel burns; that's why NNadir and I were talking about the energetic cost of that extraction.

Anon -- That Tesla Roadster's a sweet little car. It's specs are on the order of 0-60 mph (100 km/h) in about 4 seconds, with a top speed of 130mph. It can travel approx. 250 miles on a single charge, and takes 3.5 hours to recharge. At this time, I'm not ready to trade in my traditional vehicle, but if the price were right, it'd sure make a great "fun" car. FYI, the site's www.teslamotors.com

The Tesla would work for almost all of the "routine" driving I do, assuming it has reasonable passenger/payload capacity. It just wouldn't work for the occasional long distance trip. Unfortunately (or not), my annual vacation is important to me. I need to go about 800 miles each way. If they could double the range per recharge, it might be doable, since we stay overnight at the halfway point, and I can pay the motel operator for the KW-HRS I would tap from him to do the recharge. Is the battery technology up to snuff? I don't want to be spending $5-$10K every three years to replace the battery pack.

Actually, it might be more accurate to say that Big Oil must go nuclear again. Old-timers will remember that there was once an Exxon Nuclear. It owned the nuclear fuel manufacturing facility in Richland, Washington. The plant is still functioning, but now it is run by AREVA.

And don't forget Gulf General Atomics Co., which also had a part ownership in later incarnation by Shell. Philips Petroleum also had a hand in with management of what is now INL, formerly the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls.

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.